KH. NOBIN SINGH
State of Manipur – Appellant
Versus
Koting Lamkang – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Kh. Nobin Singh, J. - Heard Shri R.S. Reisang, the learned Sr. Government Advocate appearing for the applicants/appellants and Shri R.T. Rebirthson, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This is an application filed on behalf of the applicants/appellants, the State respondents praying for condonation of delay of 312 days in preferring the Regular First Appeal on the ground of bonafide mistake namely, the Applicants/Appellants did prefer an appeal against the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 18-07-2016 before the learned District Judge, Imphal West which was rejected on 28-07-2017 by it on the ground that it had no appellate pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The relevant paragraphs 2 to 5 of the application are reproduced herein below:-
"2. That, on 9th August, 2017, the Government Advocate (High Court), Manipur received an order for preferring an appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 18-07-2016 passed in O.S. No. 4 of 2015 (5 of 2016) passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Chandel, Manipur from the Law Department, Government of Manipur.
3. That, on receipt of the aforesaid letter by the Office of the Government Advocate (High Court
Basawaraj Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer
Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji
Divisional Manager, Plantation Vs. Munmi Barrack
G. Ramegouda Majorete Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore
Pundlik Jaiam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer Jaigaon Medium Project
State of Bihar Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.